He requested to use the term in the audience, but that wasn’t the case: PJ fined a lawyer who failed to attend the oral report.

An Unprecedented Fine for Absence in Cusco’s Judicial System

An unusual incident in the judicial field of  Cusco  attracted the attention of the legal community after the imposition of a  fine to a lawyer  who, after  requesting a special turn  to formulate an oral report,  decided not to attend  the agreed audience. The case, ventilated in the  Second Labor Chamber  of the  Superior Court of Justice of Cusco , proposes a point of reflection on the  responsibility  and  commitment  required by professional practice before the  Peruvian courts .

Background of the Case

The story, disseminated by LP, dates back to  2019 , when the  Sala  interpreted pertinent, granting the parties involved the power to request the word with the objective of supporting their positions through oral exposure. The instruction was clear: anyone who wanted to exercise that  right  should submit their application within  three business days  after being notified. In the warning, a specific consequence was arranged for the assumption that the lawyer does not present: an  economic sanction  supported by the  Organic Law of the Judiciary  and the  Civil Procedure Code  would be applied.

The file details that on  March 26, 2019 , one of the lawyers formalized his  request for the use of the word . However, when the time came, the professional did not attend the audience. This  displacement did not go unnoticed  for the magistrates, who firmed the warning and proceeded to impose a  fine equivalent to a procedural reference unit (URP) . The Chamber based this decision on relevant articles of the legal framework, marking a precedent aimed at strengthening the  formality  and  seriousness  required by the judicial function.

The Context of the Appeal

The material context of this process involved the  appeal of a teacher  who, after being ceased from his position as a teacher in  2013 , was looking to reverse administrative resolutions and access differential  bonuses  due to the rural area where he exercised. The demand, which dealt with the calculation of these benefits, was rejected in the first instance. In this context, the  appellant  presented arguments in favor of the nullity of those resolutions and defended that the bonus should be calculated on total remuneration, invoking  constitutional jurisprudence .

Legal Implications and Ethical Considerations

The Chamber, after analyzing the case and considering the specific regulations,  confirmed  that the calculation base should be  permanent total remuneration  and rejected the possibility of a different formula. In the ruling, they referenced  Ministerial Resolution 761-91-ED  and the jurisprudence of the  Supreme Court , which emphasize the distinction in the calculation of different state bonuses.

Outside the technical labor aspect, the episode gained notoriety for the action of the absent lawyer. The magistrates applied the planned  sanction  and ordered that the  fine be communicated  to both the Superior Court of Justice of Cusco and the corresponding  Bar Association , a measure aimed at enhancing  transparency  and  ethical compliance . The ruling determined that, once the sanction was consented or ratified, the notification should reach both organizations, aligning with the principle of  procedural advertising .

After the imposition of the fine, procedures continued to send the file to the  Constitutional and Social Law Room of the Supreme Court . Subsequently, when the file returned to Cusco in  2021 , its final file was arranged, and the lawyer sanctioned was reminded to  pay the fine  within five days, under the warning of initiating forced execution measures.